On 25/08/2021 13:07, Wei Chen wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Wei,
-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>
Sent: 2021年8月25日 18:37
To: Wei Chen <wei.c...@arm.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org;
sstabell...@kernel.org; jbeul...@suse.com
Cc: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 13/40] xen/arm: introduce numa_set_node for
Arm
Hi Wei,
On 11/08/2021 11:23, Wei Chen wrote:
This API is used to set one CPU to a NUMA node. If the system
configure NUMA off or system initialize NUMA failed, the
online NUMA node would set to only node#0. This will be done
in following patches. When NUMA turn off or init failed,
node_online_map will be cleared and set node#0 online. So we
use node_online_map to prevent to set a CPU to an offline node.
IHMO numa_set_node() should behave exactly the same way on x86 and Arm
because this is going to be used by the common code.
From the commit message, I don't quite understand why the check is
necessary on Arm but not on x86. Can you clarify it?
Yes, in patch#27, in smpboot.c, dt_smp_init_cpus function.
We will parse CPU numa-node-id from dtb CPU node. If we get
a valid node ID for one CPU, we will invoke numa_set_node to
create CPU-NODE map. But in our testing, we found when NUMA
init failed, numa_set_node still can set CPU to a offline
or invalid NODE. So we're using node_online_map to prevent
this behavior. Otherwise we have to check node_online_map
everywhere before we call numa_set_node.
What do you mean by invalid NODE? Is it 0xFF (NUMA_NO_NODE)?
x86 actually is doing the same way, but it handles node_online_map
check out of numa_set_node:
Right...
I think numa_set_node() will want to be implemented in common code.
See my above comment. If x86 is ok, I think yes, we can do it
in common code.
... on x86, this check is performed outside of numa_set_node() for one
caller whereas on Arm you are adding it in numa_set_node().
For example, numa_set_node() can be called with NUMA_NO_NODE. On x86, we
would set cpu_to_node[] to that value. However, if I am not mistaken, on
Arm we would set the value to 0.
This will change the behavior of users to cpu_to_node() later on (such
as XEN_SYSCTL_cputopoinfo).
NUMA is not something architecture specific, so I dont't think the
implementation should differ here.
In this case, I think numa_set_node() shouldn't check if the node is
valid. Instead, the caller should take care of it if it is important.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
